Month: March, 2016

Part II

“The Jew is not satisfied with de-Christianizing, he Judiazizes, he destroys the Catholic or Protestant faith, he provokes indifference but he imposes his idea of the world of morals and of life upon those whose faith he ruins. He works at his age old task, the annilation of the religion of Christ.”(Benard Lazare, L’Antisemitism, p. 350; Rabbi Benamozegh, quoted in J. Creagh Scott’s Hidden Government, page 58).

“Today the Gentile Christians who claim of holy right have been led in the wrong path. We, of the Jewish Faith have tried for centuries to teach the Gentiles a Christ never existed, and that the story of the Virgin and of Christ is, and always has been, a fictitious lie. In the near future, when the Jewish people take over the rule of the United States, legally under our god, we will create a new education system, providing that our god is the only one to follow, and proving that the Christ story is a fake…Christianity will be abolished.”(M.A. Levy, Secretary of the World League of Liberal Jews, in a speech in Los Angeles, California, August, 1949)

“Why should we believe in God? We hate Christianity and Christians. Even the best of them must be regarded as our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor, and pity, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is a hinderance to the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor; what we want is hatred. We must know how to hate, for only at this price can we conquer the universe…The fight should also be developed in the Moslem and Catholic countries, with the same ends in view and by the same means.”(Lunatcharski, The Jewish Assault on Christianity, Gerald B. Winrod, page 44)

Judeo-Christian Heritage a Hoax:It appears there is no need to belabor the absurdity and fallacy of the “Judeo-Christian heritage” fiction, which certainly is clear to all honest theologians. That “Judeo- Christian dialogue” in this context is also absurd was well stated in the author-initiative religious journal, Judaism, Winter 1966, by Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz, chairman of the department of Jewish philosophy, at the Hebrew Theological College when he wrote: “As to dialogue in the purely theological sense, nothing could be more fruitless or pointless. Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism. What is usually referred to as the Jewish- Christian traditions exists only in Christian or Secularist Fantasy.” There is no doubt this is true! And the fantasy exists in Christian and Secularist minds only because it was implanted there by the persistent propaganda of the masters of intrigue of the ADL-AJC Network. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that knowledgeable theologians, Jewish and Christians who constantly allude to “our Judeo-Christian heritage” are for their own specious purposes perpetuate a grotesque and fantastic hoax.

“The newly founded Society of Jesus…Saint Ignatius. His secretary Polanco, the only person present at his deathbed, was of Jewish descent. So was Lainez, one of his first and greatest converts, was of Jewish descent…In a short time, as the young Jesuit organization became a power for Catholic reform and propaganda, Jews were attracted to it, as they are always attracted to centers of influence, in such numbers that it was found difficult to keep out those who wished to destroy the order and the Church under pretext of working for them. Thus a nephew of the great and Catholic Jew Polanco followed him into the society, and caused such difficulties and dissensions that for years he nearly drove his superiors to despair.”(Philip II, William Thomas Walsh, p. 95)

“The doctrines which the Jews have been spreading throughout the lands for years could not but have helped to undermine the Church’s power.”(A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 272).

“So against both the Albigenses and Huguenots this (Jewish) pope now directed all his fury…The beautiful city of Beziers was razed to the ground. ‘We spared neither dignity, nor sex nor age’ writes the monk. Arnold, to his Holy Father, the pope. ‘Nearly twenty thousand human beings perished by the sword. And after the massacre the town was plundered and burnt, and the revenge of God seemed to rage over it in a wonderful manner.”(A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 224).

“It is the Jews who originated biblical exegesis (a critical analysis of the Bible), just as they were the first to criticize the forms and doctrines of Christianity…Truly has Darmesteter written: ‘The Jew was the apostle of unbelief, and every revolt of mind originated with him.'”(Bernard Lazare, Antisemitism: It’s History and Causes, London: Britons Publishing Co., 1967, pp. 149-151).

“Jewish Talmudism owes its existence today to the indifference with which it is regarded… The Jew is prejudiced against the Bible, doing what he can to destroy public honor of the Book.”(The International Jew, Vol. III, p. 16).

“Mrs. Van Hyning, I am surprised at your surprise. You are a student of history — and you know that both the Borgias and the Mediciis are Jewish families of Italy. Surely you know that there have been Popes from both of these house. Perhaps it will surprise you to know that we have had 20 Jewish Popes, and when you have sufficient time, which may coincide with my free time, I can show you these names and dates. You will learn from these that: The crimes committed in the name of the Catholic Church were under Jewish Popes. The leaders of the inquisition was one, de TorQuemada, a Jew.”(Woman’s Voice, November 25, 1953)

“A Jewish question exists, and there will be one as long as the Jews remain Jews. It is an actual fact that the Jews fight against the Catholic Church. They are free thinkers, and constitute a vanguard of Atheism, Bolshevism and Revolution…One should protect one’s self against the evil influence of Jewish morals, and particularly boycott the Jewish Press and their demoralizing publications.”(Pastoral letter issued in 1936. “An Answer to Father Caughlin’s Critics,” page 98)

“We were also at pains to ask the Governments represented at the Conference of Genoa, to make, by common agreement, a declaration which might have saved Russia and all the world from many woes, demanding as a condition preliminary to any recognition of the Soviet Government, respect for conscience, freedom of worship and of church property. Alas, these three points, so essential above all to those ecclesiastical hierarchies unhappily separated from Catholic unity, were abandoned in favor of temporal interests, which in fact would have been better safeguarded, if the different Governments had first of all considered the rights of God, His Kingdom and His Justice.”(Letter of Pope Pius XI, On the Soviet Campaign Against God, February 2, 1930; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 22)

“…Bolshevism in its proper perspective, namely, as the most recent development in the age-long struggle waged by the Jewish Nation against…Christ…”(The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 48)

“The anti-religious campaign of the Soviet must not be restricted to Russia. It must be carried on throughout the world.”(Stephanov, quoted in J. Creagh Scott’s Hidden Government, page 59)

Because of this hatred toward Christ and the Christian way of life, we would ask: Is the Christian more dangerous to Judaism and the other religions of the world, because God forbids them to injure his brother, is the same God before whom we are both one day to appear in judgment; is that God less tremendous to the wicked, or less favorable to the just, because on His word we believe him to be one in essence, though three in persons? This hatred of the Jews which is becoming more and more frenzied, which even the pagans and infidels themselves could not justify on such pretexts as they present for public consumption. What fanatic rage must it be that blinds the Jews, when in contradiction with themselves, they applaud the toleration of the ancient Philosophers, who, though disbelieving the mysteries of Paganism, never attempted to rob the people of their religion; while on the other hand they incessantly conspire against Christians and Christianity under pretence that it contains some sort of mysteries.

Another objection not less extravagant, is that against Revelation itself. It is God, they say, whom the Christians declare to have spoken; hence there can be no further liberty of opinion in man on matters of faith. The so-called defenders of liberty and equality is then authorized to rise in arms against Christ and Christianity and its way of life which, they say, denies people of their liberty. Such is thier arguments. But to what length does their frenzy carry them? Rabbis for hundreds of years have conspired to overthrow every altar, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, or any of the other Christian sects. What stupid idea is this? Can reason be traced through plots and conspiracies, of which the sole tendency is the overthrow of the religion of the White Race, under the pretence of liberty of worship; we have heard all sorts of false ideas to crush the God of the Christians

For 2000 years we have seen them conspire and use every artifice of cunning intrigue to rob the world of the religion of God, of Christianity. And because they utter the empty sounds of Liberty, Equality and Toleration, people mistake their utterings as that of profound men, when they are nothing but empty shells, trying to escape the judgment they know is coming. Perhaps most telling of all is that ‘it was American Roman Catholic bishops in the middle and late 19th Century who demanded the removal of Bible reading from public schools…’ Why? The full weight of history confirms that the Bible has been and continues to be opposed by those seeking to destroy freedom, but those seeking to bring mankind into bondage. This speaks volumes about the worth and the truth of the Bible. The West’s tyrants of tomorrow are even now painting heavily against it, and in particular, the 17th- century King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus (also banned by Rome) with Hebrew and Greek texts differing from all other modern verses, which come from the Judaized Alexandrian texts, and contains many errors.

Dr. Albert M. Gessman, writing in the Winter 1969 number of the conservative Jewish journal, “Issues.” After contrasting critically almost nine pages of glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity to the disadvantage of the latter, and after reviewing the back-grounds of both religions, he concludes that, “A Judeo-Christian heritage or tradition in the proper sense of that hyphenated word does not exist; it has no foundation in historical fact.” There is Edom[Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8. And Edom is in ‘Modern Jewry’ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41.

“A Cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, and who distrusts Big Government.” (Janet Reno, in a speech before an ATF luncheon, Washington, D.C.)

The Year 1939 – Part 2

I’ve spoken before about the deliberately destructive role of the mass media in American society. I’ve talked about the psychology of liberalism, about what makes liberals do the crazy and destructive things they do. Today, though, instead of talking about the enemies of our society, the enemies of our people, let’s just talk about our people and the sort of society that we need.

You know, a society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn’t function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and were able to change all of the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that’s what’s happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society 200 years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That’s not long from a historical viewpoint, but it’s long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what’s happening to them.

The society we had in Europe up until the end of the 18th century — or one may say, the various national societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society — this European society had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature; it had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. And when we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we brought the essential elements of our society with us.

And what were those essential elements?

The first essential element was order. Everyone had a place in our society, whether he was the village blacksmith or the king, and he knew what that place was. He knew how he fitted in, what his responsibilities were, to whom he owed loyalty and respect, and to whom he in turn was obliged to provide guidance. It was a hierarchical society. There was no pretense that everyone was just as capable or just as creative or just as brave or just as suited for leadership as anyone else. People had social rank and social status and social authority commensurate with their social responsibilities and with their contributions to society.

The second essential feature that our society had was homogeneity. Everyone had the same roots, the same history, the same genes, the same sensibilities. Or at least, there was enough genetic similarity, there was a close enough family relationship among the people, so that people understood each other. A village, a province, a nation was like a large, extended family. People felt a sense of kinship, a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and responsibility that extended to the whole society. This feeling of belonging, this sense of a common history and a common destiny, this sense of identity, was the glue that held the society together and gave it its strength. And it gave men and women their individual strength too. Just knowing who they were, where they had been, and where they were going made an enormous difference in their sense of personal security, in their ability to plan ahead and be reasonably confident of what the future held for them.

This homogeneity and the consequent sense of family, of identity, was thousands of years in developing, just like the hierarchical order in our society. And we developed, we evolved, along with our society. The type of society we had become imprinted on our genes. Of course, it wasn’t a perfect society. It was full of problems and imperfections. We always were developing new technologies, for example, and our society didn’t always have time to adjust itself to these innovations before even more innovations came along. But it was a society in which we were strong and confident and more or less spiritually healthy.

You know, the opponents of social order and racial homogeneity will try to confuse the issue by pointing out that we have a longer life span today, that our infant mortality rate is much lower, that we don’t have to work as hard to support ourselves, that we can buy all sorts of shiny gadgets that our ancestors couldn’t, and so on. They want you to believe that these changes came about as benefits of the breakdown of order and the destruction of homogeneity. But they didn’t. They are all the results of technological innovation. Our medical scientists learned how to control the diseases which shortened our lives. Our scientists and engineers learned how we could work more efficiently. And they learned how to make new tools and new toys for us.

Now, to be sure, not all of the degenerative changes in our society which have occurred in the past couple of centuries have been the consequence of the destructive efforts of the Jews and the liberals. The Industrial Revolution really was a huge shock to our traditional form of society. The Industrial Revolution took people off the farms and out of the villages and packed them into factory towns like sardines in a can. This was a great strain on the old order. The new relationship between factory owner and factory workers was not as healthy a one as had existed between landowner and workers on the land, nor was the new, urban life-style as spiritually healthy as the village life-style.

Unrest and revolution were fomented from the latter part of the 18th century and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries: egalitarianism, Communism, democracy, equal rights, no responsibilities, welfare programs, feminism. The old order was drowned in blood. In France the aristocrats and the landowners were butchered in response to the resentments which the liberals had stirred up among the rabble. Later in Russia the same process took place, when the Jewish Bolsheviks finally gained the upper hand and butchered not just the aristocrats, but everyone who had worked a little harder and been a little more successful than the rabble. The kulaks,the small farmers and landowners, were murdered en masse, by the millions, in order to “equalize” Russian society and destroy the last traces of the old, hierarchical order.

And into the social chaos of the 20th century the enemies of our people were able to introduce their idea of racial equality alongside their idea of social equality. We were told that the descendants of our slaves are just as good as we are — maybe better — and so they should become our social equals. We should bring them into our schools and neighborhoods, and we should intermarry with them, and we should buy Food Stamps for them with our taxes, and we should give them preference in hiring and promotions. And we should open our borders to all of the non-White wretched refuse of the Third World’s teeming shores. They also are our equals, we are told. The more diversity the better. Diversity is our strength. Et cetera. Et cetera. Blah, blah, blah.

We were too disoriented and confused by the destruction of our social order to resist this poisonous propaganda. And so here we are at the end of the 20th century. There are some people who will try to convince you that things never have been better. We certainly have more equality and less order, more diversity and less homogeneity than ever before. And that obviously suits some people, in addition to the liberals and the Jews who have been pushing for these changes.

Are these changes better for us?

The suicide statistics, the drug statistics, the crime statistics, the divorce statistics, and the mental illness statistics give us part of the answer. The statistics should help us keep our grip on reality when the Jewish media try to persuade us that we need more of the same poison they have been dishing out for so long: more equality, more chaos, more diversity.

And we should be able to look into our own souls for the rest of the answer. We should know that we need again to have an ordered, structured society, in which we all have a place and will be appreciated according to how effectively we fill that place. We should know that we need again to have a homogeneous society, in which we can feel a sense of belonging. We should know that we need a society in which we have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. We should know that we need a society in which everyone strives for quality, not for an imaginary equality. We should know that in order to be spiritually healthy again we need a society in which we can feel a sense of rootedness and responsibility, rather than the aimless, wandering, rootless, cosmopolitan, egoism which characterizes American society today.

If we are honest with ourselves we know that we all crave a healthy society again, we need it. But too many of us have let ourselves be persuaded by the enemies of our people that the type of society we need is no longer attainable. Our enemies tell us, “We have destroyed the order in your society. We have made everyone equal, and you dare not try to take that equality away. That would be like trying to take candy away from a child. We have opened the candy store and told all the children that they can have as much as they want, and it’s all free. They all will fight you if you try to change that, if you try to tell them that they must earn their candy.” And our enemies grin in triumph when they see how that demoralizes and discourages so many of us.

And they tell us, “We have destroyed the homogeneity in your society. We have replaced your homogeneity with diversity. We have brought every non-White type on the face of the earth into your midst, we have brought them in by the millions, and we have forced you to mix with them. Now there’s nothing you can do to restore your homogeneity.” And again they grin and say, “What will you do? Will you try to root out every non-White and every mongrel and send them all away or get rid of them? You don’t have the stomach for that. So you’d better just learn to live with all of these non-Whites and mongrels. Pretty soon you’ll be a minority in your own land.” And they gloat.

And it is true, of course, that many of us do not yet have the stomach to do what must be done. And so the suicide rate and the divorce rate and the abortion rate will keep rising. The government will continue building more prisons. The cults will continue thriving. And the Jews and the liberals will keep telling us how wonderful everything is, how things have never been better, how we should appreciate all of the equality and diversity.

But, you know, all the while the number of us who do have the stomach to do what must be done will be growing. Our numbers are growing, because more and more of our people are coming to understand that the only alternative is death: death for our society, death for our children, death for our kind. What the Jews and liberals have done to our society is lethal. It cannot be sustained.

Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. The liberals may not be able to understands that, and the Jews, with their media propaganda, try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. And we are determined to do whatever we must do to have once again a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality. We will have it. We will do what is necessary.

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, “Extermination by hunger” or “Hunger-extermination”; derived from ‘Морити голодом’, “Murder by Starvation”) refers to a series of purposeful mechanized genocidal famines that took place under the Jewish Bolshevik regime during the periods of 1921-23, 1932-33 and 1946-47. Holodomor is a compound of the Ukrainian words holod meaning “hunger” and mor meaning “plague”. The expression moryty holodom means “to inflict death by hunger”. Lenin established a Jewish regime that slaughtered well over 66 million ethnic Europeans the Holodomor Genocides alone resulted in a death toll of 16.5 million. Therefore, in the minds of those that experienced the Holodomor Genocides the term will forever conjure up the kidnappings, torture and cannibalism taking place under the Jewish Bolshevik regime.

The Year 1939 – Part 1

At a March 3, 2003 anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia, Rep. James Moran (D-Va. ) told a crowd of about 120 people, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we [the United States] would not be doing this.“

The White House, several congressional Democratic leaders, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Moran’s remarks. Much of the mainstream media also chimed in with their condemnations of the seven-term congressman, and ultimately, he was forced to apologize.

In the 3/24/05 issue of the widely circulated and highly influential US News and World Report, editorialist Gloria Borger criticized Moran and attempted to rebut his claims. [1] The article is very important because it expresses in a very simple way the ideological line put out by much of the mainstream media as to why, allegedly, one should not blame the Jewish-Zionist lobby for helping to drive the US into the Iraq war.

As we shall soon see, it was in fact the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that were behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim is abundant, the fact that it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media is a tribute to the ability of the Jewish-Zionist power elite to tailor and even censor the news.

Before reading my rebuttal, I strongly urge the reader to study the Borger article so as to get a firsthand understanding of her arguments. The essay begins by giving an account of what was said by critics of the Iraq war, like Congressman Moran and Pat Buchanan, about Jewish-Zionist involvement in the drive for an invasion of Iraq. In a tone of condemnation, Ms. Borger sarcastically claims: “In this conspiratorial world view, these men [the Jewish, neoconservative Iraq war architects] have a master plan connived years ago to do Israel’s bidding and get rid of Saddam Hussein.“

The major architect of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, did formulate a plan to invade Iraq years before it took place in 2003. In 1977, Wolfowitz was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study. Its ostensible purpose was to examine possible areas of threat in the Third World. Even as far back as the late 1970s, he claimed Iraq was a direct military threat. As Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia points out, the Limited Contingency Study laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. [2]

The respected online source further points out that Wolfowitz’s attachments to Jewish-Zionist agendas are deep and go back a long way, even into his teen years good evidence that his plan for a US invasion of Iraq and the interests of Israel are linked. [3]

Borger herself offers evidence that these pro-war functionaries had a plan to invade Iraq years before the actual invasion took place. She writes: “But what of those Jewish neoconservative hawks lurking inside the [Bush] administration? Didn’t some of them write memos in the late 1990s calling for, among other things, the overthrow of Saddam? Yes.“ Thank you Ms. Borger for bolstering my case.

Borger mentions Pat Buchanan’s comments in a very negative tone: “… it was a polemic in his magazine declaring that a small cabal of neoconservatives with ties to the administration are willing to ‘conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel’.“ In her view, Buchanan’s statements are self-evidently false, and they should be utterly rejected by every intelligent American

The war is in fact to a very large extent about Israel interests, as before the war began, former Supreme Allied NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark, admitted as much to a respected British news source. He acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s war plans serve, first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist interests. Being privy to the thoughts and beliefs of those in the highest levels of government, his comments carry authoritative weight: “Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.“ [4]

Furthermore, after the war was in progress, the American general in charge of American forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, revealed that the protection of Israel was a major reason as to why the US went to war. In the words of a Jewish Telegraphic Agency press release: “The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.“ [5]

Borger continues.“Never mind that if it were up to the Israelis, the United States would be looking toward regime change in Iran or Syria.“ In other words, the invasion of Iraq is not about Israel’s interests, because the Israelis would want the US to take action against Iran or Syria.

The Israelis were, and are, in fact pushing for US action against Iran. For example, in the June 25, 2003 issue of the pro-Zionist and highly influential Wall Street Journal, former prime minister of Israel Shimon Peres insisted that the US, Europe, Russia and the U. N. should take serious action against the Iranian nation. [6] The Jewish-Zionist ADL, which is a de facto agent of Israel, is now pushing for the world to act against Iran. [7]

Borger continues.“And never mind that this cabal is actually a bunch of predictable hawks who also urged action in Kosovo and Bosnia on behalf of Muslims. Forget all that.“

Here, I believe, is a formal statement of her argument.“These (largely Jewish) neoconservatives pushed for military action in Kosovo and Bosnia aggressive military actions that in no way serve Israel’s interests. Therefore, it is not fair to say that they pushed for military action against Iraq for Israel’s interests.“

This is highly misleading, if not patently false. The Jewish political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg revealed a major facet of the neoconservative agenda. He pointed out how in recent times Jews have played a decisive role in conservative Republicanism and neo-conservatism. [8] Ginsberg reveals what lies behind the conservative mask: “A number of Jews ascertained for themselves that Israeli security required a strong American commitment to internationalism and defense. Among the most prominent Jewish spokesman for this position was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz had been a liberal and a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. But by the early 1970s he came to realize that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs – from which it followed that American withdrawal into [isolationism] represented a direct threat to the security of Israel. This was one major reason that Podhoretz broke with liberals…“

Thus, one of the main contentions of neo-conservatism is that a highly interventionist US foreign policy in areas other than the Middle East will safeguard the interests of Israel. If the US pursues an overall interventionist foreign policy it will be more likely to intervene on Israel’s behalf if the Zionist nation needs it.

This evidence directly undermines Borger’s claim. Just because the hawkish neocons advocated military action in Kosovo and Bosnia “military actions that do not overtly serve Israel’s interests in no way disproves the theory that their advocacy of the US invasion of Iraq was for Israel’s welfare. Their overall aggressive, interventionist agenda in areas other than the Middle East is ultimately tied to the welfare of Israel\. In her ongoing attempt to discredit the theory that the Zionist lobby drove the US into the Iraq war, she asks this rhetorical question: “Still, doesn’t Bush’s long-standing preference for Sharon have more to do with his disgust with Yasser Arafat than his deep affection for Richard Perle?”

Bush’s dislike of Yasser Arafat may have played a role in driving him into the neoconservative camp, but monetary contributions from Jewish Republicans undoubtedly also played a role in driving him into the pro-Iraq war, pro-Zionist camp. As Jewish scholars S. M. Lipset and E. Raab note, one quarter of Republican Party contributions come from Jewish sources. [9]

Furthermore, Bush’s main advisors and top men are members of the ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israel Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Undoubtedly this also played a significant role in prodding Bush to accept Richard Perle’s Zionist agenda for Iraq.

The distinguished British journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed out in the respected British news source, The Independent, that: “Only The Nation among all of America’s newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration, and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel’s own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.“

Fisk continues: “Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as one of the most influential ‘Jinsans’ in Washington, has been calling for ‘total war’ against ‘terror’ – with ‘regime change’ for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Perle advises the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as ‘the so-called occupied territories’…“

Continuing with this line of thought, Fisk adds: “Jinsa’s website says it exists to ‘inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East’. Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of ‘terrorism’ – joins the US Defense Department as an Iran-Iraq “expert.“

Fisk then reveals the Jewish director of Jinsa: “According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as director of Jinsa.“

Finally, Fisk points out that President Bush will not reveal to the American public the influence Jinsa has on his foreign policy: “President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations…“ [10]

In her further attempt to disprove the hypothesis that Bush and his pro-Zionist colleagues lied the American public into the Iraq war, she proclaims: “Let’s face it: Bush is no conniving conspirator. If anything, he’s a deeply unsubtle man who forms visceral and stubborn assessments of leaders” and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong II are at the top of his bad-guys list.

Contrary to what she writes, new evidence suggests that Bush is indeed a conniving conspirator that attempted to lie us into the Iraq war. According to a recent AFP press report: “US military intelligence warned the Bush administration in February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided ‘intentionally misleading data,’ according to a declassified report.“

The article continues: “Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden’s terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.“

Commenting upon this sad state of affairs, Democrat Carl Levin was forced by the evidence to state the obvious: “This newly declassified information provides additional dramatic evidence that the administrations pre-war statements were deceptive.“ [11]

Furthermore, Kim Jong II’s North Korea, a dangerous enemy of the US, has publicly admitted that they have nuclear weapons. [12] Yet, Bush did not order an invasion of North Korea. But Bush did order an invasion of Hussein’s Iraq, “a nation that did not have nuclear weapons that could threaten the US. The one country that Hussein’s Iraq did pose a threat to was Israel,” further evidence that Bush’s pro-war Iraq policy serves the interests of Israel.

Once again, in an attempt to discredit the hypothesis that the Zionist lobby prodded the US into the Iraq war, Borger claims, with a rhetorical question, that the president’s advisors were not fooled by Zionist functionaries to go to war with Iraq.“Were the president’s top advisers hoodwinked?,” Borger asks.

The president’s top advisers were not “hoodwinked” or “bamboozled” into driving the US into the Iraq war. As we showed previously, these advisers are all men with an ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israeli outlook, and they are members of the ardently pro-Zionist JINSA. These Bush advisers are actively involved with pro-Zionist interests. [13]

Aziz has it perfectly correct. One of the main reasons for the war was oil for Israel. From another respected Internet news source, we read: „ [The] minister for national infrastructures [of Israel] Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.“

The article continues: “It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam’s successors agree to supply Israel with oil.“ The authors add this most cogent observation: “All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel’s energy bill.“ [14]

Borger then lists what she claims is the real reason why the US went to war with Iraq: “So when a White House aide suggests that this president believes that confronting tyranny is in our interest and coincides with our values, we say there must be more to it. If confronting tyranny is truly the reason as to why Bush wants war, then we should expect that he would have threatened Israel just as ardently that he threatened Iraq. For decades, Israel has exercised tyrannical oppression over the Palestinian people, but Bush has not declared war on Israel. He is allied with Israel.“

If confronting tyranny was a reason as to why Bush goes to war, then we should expect that he would have invaded North Korea, an oppressive Stalinist entity and enemy of the US that does have weapons of mass destruction. [15] But Bush never ordered an invasion of North Korea. Of course, North Korea does not directly threaten Israel. Bush chose to invade a nation that did not have any weapons of mass destruction that threaten the US. Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to Israel. All of this is further evidence that a primary motive to invade Iraq was for Zionist-Israeli interests.

Finally, Borger reveals to her readers “the truth.“ Jewish-Zionist forces are not in any way to blame for driving the US into the Iraq war: “Here is what is true: Jewish Americans hold no monolithic view about a possible war with Iraq. One survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee shows that 59 percent of Jews approve of a possible war while 36 percent disapprove, numbers that mirror the public at large.“

Here is what she is arguing. While a majority of Jews were in favor of the war, slightly more than a third of Jews opposed the war. So you cannot blame all Jews for driving the US into the Iraq war. Furthermore, since the relative percentage of Jews who favored the war were similar to the relative percentages of non-Jews who favored going to war with Iraq, you cannot blame the Jewish Community for driving the US into the Iraq war.

Since the Jewish Community in general wields a disproportionate share of the power and influence in the US, it is not fair to compare the percentages of Jews who favored the war with the percentages of non-Jews who favored the war, show they are similar, and then conclude that the Jewish-Zionist lobby played no major role in driving the US into the Iraq war. Since the Jewish-Zionist Community has a disproportionate share of political power and influence in the US, their wishes, activities and agenda often play a more significant role than that of the public at large. So, by the mere fact that a majority in the Jewish Community favored the war is highly significant in a political sense because they have a disproportionate share of the political power in the United States.

In all fairness, it must be emphasized that all American Jews were not and are not in favor of this war, and the entire American Jewish community is not responsible for driving the US into the Iraq war. And furthermore, there are a number of Jews who are ardently opposed to this war and they openly condemn Bush’s pro-war policies. But the fact of the matter remains is that certain powerful groups of Jews with strong Zionist sympathies in collusion with powerful pro-Zionist non-Jews did in fact drive the US into the Iraq war because it served Zionist-Israeli interests.

Borger then goes on to admit that, yes, these Jewish neoconservative hawks did write memos in the late 1990s calling for the overthrow of Saddam’s regime. But these memos, she claims, should not be looked upon as George Bush’s reason and master plan for invading Iraq. According to Borger, they have no significance whatsoever, because George Bush has told the American people that the reason he invaded Iraq was to bring to an end the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein for the welfare of the world. To believe otherwise, Borger continues, “is to believe that George Bush is a liar.“ According to Borger’s view, Bush is honest and he told the American people the truth as to his real reasons for invading Iraq.

As stated previously, we now have evidence that George Bush’s pre-war statements were knowingly deceptive, and that he may very well have lied the American people into the Iraq war. [16]

Borger then goes on to quote one of the spokesmen and luminaries of the Jewish-Zionist Community, Elie Wiesel, as to the “real” reason why the US invaded Iraq. The great Holocaust guru argues that appeasing Saddam Hussein would not have led to peace. To the contrary, in order to spare the world further horror and oppression, the US had to destroy Saddam’s regime. In order to bolster his argument, the great moral beacon then invokes the Hitler analogy: “Had Europe’s great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler’s aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II.“

As the political psychologist Kevin MacDonald has noted in his work, this is an age-old Jewish tactic clothing sectarian Jewish interests in universalistic moral rhetoric in order to make it more appealing to the non-Jewish world. [17] If Wiesel were truly interested in ridding the world of dictatorial oppression, he would be calling for sanctions against his fellow Jews in Israel for their oppression of Palestinians just as he called for war against Hussein’s Iraq.

Gloria Borger’s article shows how pro-Zionist functionaries in the US media mislead and bamboozle their readership in order to protect Jewish-Zionist interests.

[10] Robert Fisk, “Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil,” Independent, 10 September 2002. Online : http://www. news. independent. co. uk/world/middle_east/story. jsp?story=332011 For the original article from The Nation that Fisk refers to and exposes the considerable number of pro-Zionist, pro-Israel lobbyists within the Bush administration, see Jason Vest, “The Men from JINSA and CSP,” The Nation, 2 September 2002. Online: http://www. thenation. com/doc/20020902/vest